손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs, as married couple from December 2009, reside in the D apartment 109 Dong 302 (hereinafter “instant 302”), Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the Defendant resided in the same 402 unit and raises two children while living in the same 402 unit.
B. At around 19:00 on December 18, 201, when there was a dispute between the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs, the defendant listened to the defendant's wife that the plaintiff A had a ditch due to inter-floor noise problems. At around 22:00 on the same day, around 22:0, the defendant sent a golf loan in front of the 302 entrance, and damaged the repair cost of KRW 1,045,000 to the 302 entrance, and threatened the plaintiff with a golf loan, and thereby threatening the plaintiffs by using a common bath, such as "I amthy, I do not want to do so, I do not want to do so, I do not want to do so."
(hereinafter “instant tort”). C.
The Defendant was prosecuted for the crime of special intimidation against Plaintiff A and the crime of causing special property damage (Ulsan District Court 2012 High Court 842) on September 13, 2012, and was sentenced to a fine of two million won by the above court on September 13, 2012, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 4, and 10 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages incurred by the tort of this case.
The plaintiffs suffered from mental suffering due to the defendant's noise continuously occurred from December 2, 2009 to October 2013. In particular, the plaintiffs Eul suffered from stress caused by the stress, and the diseases such as the Belgium, basin water treatment, and the tension of the shoulder pipe. The defendant alleged that the plaintiffs are responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to noise between floors. Thus, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone led to noise to the extent that it is difficult for the defendant to reach the number of pages.
or the plaintiff B-.